Module 1: Poverty reduction with a livelihood focus

1.5: The meaning of vulnerability and risks in the context of livelihood systems

What does living in a state of vulnerability mean? To a farming family in coastal Bangladesh, it could mean being unable to cope with tidal floods. To a slum dweller in a favela of Sao Paolo, it could mean being helplessly exposed to violence and corruption. Vulnerability stands for a crucial dimension of livelihoods in poverty, and, therefore, the term needs to be clarified for an application for poverty reduction measures.

Towards a clarifications of terms and definitions

In the wording of a dictionary (Collins, 1986) vulnerability means "the capacity to be physically or emotionally wounded or hurt." Vulnerability is thus susceptibility to physical or emotional harm or injury. In other words, vulnerability emerges when human beings, as individuals or as a social unit, have to face a harmful threat or shock with an inadequate capacity to respond effectively. This understanding is reflected in the two examples above, namely, exposure to tidal floods without access to a flood shelter in Bangladesh or exposure to violence and corruption in a favela without recourse to effective protection by the rule of law. Obviously, mere threat or risk alone is not a sufficient cause for vulnerability - not even if the threat has a high probability of occurrence. It is, ultimately, the combination of risk and inadequate capabilities to respond that leads to a state of vulnerability.

The above understanding is captured and refined in the definition of vulnerability proposed by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Network on Poverty Reduction (POVNET): "Risk is defined as the likelihood of occurrence of (external) shocks and stresses plus their potential severity, whereas vulnerability is the degree of exposure to risk (hazard, shock) and uncertainty, and the capacity of households or individuals to prevent, mitigate or cope with risk." This differentiation of the term "vulnerability" is of crucial relevance for assessing causes of poverty and for conceiving poverty reduction measures.

Capturing vulnerability and poverty in the context of livelihood systems

A livelihood system is perceived as vulnerable if it lacks the capacity and the capability to cope with forces and factors threatening its sustainable existence. Poverty thus reflects lack or loss of sustainable livelihood. Indeed, the generally accepted definition of sustainable livelihood precisely reflects this understanding: "A livelihood system is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both in present and future, without undermining the natural resource base" (DFID Glossary, Sustainable Livelihoods). The definition also refers to the fact that livelihood as such becomes vulnerable when unsuitable strategies undermine the natural resource base.

Effective livelihood approaches must, therefore, prove their capacity to analyse the nature and extent of vulnerability in order to conceive effective poverty reduction measures. This task encompasses the analysis of risks (frequency, magnitude, probability) in the context of livelihoods and the exploration of crucial dimensions of coping capacities in the core of livelihoods. As far as vulnerability and risks are concerned, livelihood approaches should provide answers to questions such as: Should poverty reduction focus on preventing or mitigating the risks to which a livelihood is exposed? Is it more effective to increase the coping capacity of the livelihood concerned? Or, at the end, is a combination of all required?

Risks can be categorised along four main dimensions:

An adequate assessment of response capacities of livelihood systems to risks requires more than just a stocktaking of assets. People's reactions to risks are guided by their worldviews and experience and are informed by gender related decision-making as well as modes of cooperation in a given social system. When conceiving poverty reduction measures, it might be also appropriate to distinguish between interventions that favour coping or promote adaptation. Coping strategies are generally understood as shorter-term and direct reactions to a specific shock such as drought or flood. On the other hand, adaptive strategies entail a longer-term change in behaviour patterns as a response to a shock or stress.

References